Graham Onions and Charles Shreck playing for England... as if we're not already the laughing-stock of World cricket...

Seriously, there's a reason we keep chopping-and-changing in ODIs - it's because if you pick someone and they go for 5.5-an-over repeatedly, to continue to pick them is what's known as innate stupidity. If you try someone and they don't do well, you drop them. Anyone seriously expecting Liam Plunkett to amount to much is expecting one hell of a lot. It's not as simple as "pick X and stick with him". You can't just turn a crap bowler into a good one by showing faith in him. The reason New Zealand, Australia and South Africa have high-quality seam attacks is because they have lots of good bowlers, not because the selection is exceptional. If England pick Plunkett and Broad right now the likely outcome is lots of very, very high totals against us. Because these 2 bowlers are not very good. And knowing your teammates well won't help you bowl well - only one person can bowl the ball at a time. It's up to the bowler with the ball in his hand, no-one else can do a thing at that time.

Nor is it as simple as Anderson being given the new-ball. The new-ball only lasts 20 overs or so. Sure, Anderson might (and only might - the new ball is a privelidge, not something to be thrown around randomly) do better with the new-ball, but you can't just look at simple stats like "when he's opened he's got X, when he hasn't he's got Z". The only way to do it is to look at opening spells - and the only time Anderson ever opened the bowling for England was in his first series against South Africa, where he was mostly very far from exceptional. Right now, there are several bowlers I'd prefer give the new-ball to, though Harmison isn't one of them. How on Earth he ever got near the new-ball is beyond me, he's never, ever used it well and rarely ever takes even a single wicket in his new-ball spells.

There's nothing wrong, BTW, with the captain talking to the bowler. Sometimes bowlers are failing to do something which is not remotely difficult to try to do - and it's generally a good idea for a captain to see if he can help (ie ascertain that the bowler is trying to do what he should be and getting it wrong rather than trying the wrong thing) rather than let the bowler continue to get the treatment.

All young bowlers, their averages from 23.00 to 44.00 econ from 4.43 to 5.80 and strike rates from 29.21 to 44.04. A mixture but as they progress in their careers their figures will improve. These are all bowlers with potential to be still bowling for their countries in 10 years time.

Maybe Australia should drop of Johnson and Tait as they go at over 5 an over and India drop Sreesanth and Pathan for the same reason. Plunkett took 12 wickets in 6 games against two top quality sides and was instrumental in winning the games in Australia. The reason why countries have good bowlers is that they are usually over 30 and have bowling for a long time in international cricket and but won't be bowling in 5 years time. So the next generation of bowlers have to start somewhere.

As for opening the bowling, the batsmen is trying to get in and it's easier to get a wicket than coming on first change when they have settled and the ball has lost it's zip. Anderson opened the bowling in India as well as other matches. If you are a swing bowler you prefer bowling when the ball is swinging I would say.

All young bowlers, their averages from 23.00 to 44.00 econ from 4.43 to 5.80 and strike rates from 29.21 to 44.04. A mixture but as they progress in their careers their figures will improve. These are all bowlers with potential to be still bowling for their countries in 10 years time.

No, it's an all-too-often-presumed presumption. Just because you're young, it DOES NOT automatically mean you'll get better. Plenty of bowlers who are crap remain crap. There are bowlers in there who have already done well (Asif, Patel, Malinga) but there are also plenty who have to date been extremely poor. And that they will change is most certainly not a given, I can see far more of those than not being poor for their entire ODI careers.

Maybe Australia should drop of Johnson and Tait as they go at over 5 an over and India drop Sreesanth and Pathan for the same reason. Plunkett took 12 wickets in 6 games against two top quality sides and was instrumental in winning the games in Australia.

Erm, he was instrumental in winning 1 game, the Second Final. Other than that, he got the treatment (and most of the wickets he did get were with poor deliveries). And yes, India and Australia should and have dropped Pathan and Johnson.

The reason why countries have good bowlers is that they are usually over 30 and have bowling for a long time in international cricket and but won't be bowling in 5 years time. So the next generation of bowlers have to start somewhere.

Eh? Good bowlers are good bowlers. Bowlers who start off as terrible as Plunkett rarely get anywhere. Anyone who becomes seriously good has to look better than dreadful from the start.

As for opening the bowling, the batsmen is trying to get in and it's easier to get a wicket than coming on first change when they have settled and the ball has lost it's zip. Anderson opened the bowling in India as well as other matches. If you are a swing bowler you prefer bowling when the ball is swinging I would say.

Obviously. But you only open the bowling if you are the best candidate. For me, Hoggard and Flintoff are better candidates for England.

No, it's an all-too-often-presumed presumption. Just because you're young, it DOES NOT automatically mean you'll get better. Plenty of bowlers who are crap remain crap. There are bowlers in there who have already done well (Asif, Patel, Malinga) but there are also plenty who have to date been extremely poor. And that they will change is most certainly not a given, I can see far more of those than not being poor for their entire ODI careers.

Erm, he was instrumental in winning 1 game, the Second Final. Other than that, he got the treatment (and most of the wickets he did get were with poor deliveries). And yes, India and Australia should and have dropped Pathan and Johnson.

Eh? Good bowlers are good bowlers. Bowlers who start off as terrible as Plunkett rarely get anywhere. Anyone who becomes seriously good has to look better than dreadful from the start.

Obviously. But you only open the bowling if you are the best candidate. For me, Hoggard and Flintoff are better candidates for England.

I wouldn't say Asif has done well in ODIs 22 matches 22 wickets. I would say the minimum for an ODI opening bowler is 1.5 wickets per match with the rest of the bowlers 1.00 per match. Of the three you mention only Malinga has done well.

So who are all these good bowlers that are being kept out of the teams by these young players?

I can't be bothered to argue about Plunkett as he is not one of my favourites but who was taking all the wickets to get us to the final. Mahmood was invisible.

Flintoff is not an opening bowler and when he has opened has looked even less likely that Harmison to take a wicket in his opening spell. Jones should open with Hoggard until Broad becomes available.

I wouldn't say Asif has done well in ODIs 22 matches 22 wickets. I would say the minimum for an ODI opening bowler is 1.5 wickets per match with the rest of the bowlers 1.00 per match. Of the three you mention only Malinga has done well.

So who are all these good bowlers that are being kept out of the teams by these young players?

I can't be bothered to argue about Plunkett as he is not one of my favourites but who was taking all the wickets to get us to the final. Mahmood was invisible.

Flintoff is not an opening bowler and when he has opened has looked even less likely that Harmison to take a wicket in his opening spell. Jones should open with Hoggard until Broad becomes available.

You make some fair points but there is no way Hoggard should play ODIs. Obviously he is suited to tests but his bowling is anything but suited to ODIs.

He bowls a consistent length, Has little to no variation in pace, has the tendancy to push the ball down the leg side, little height or pace.

More importantly though than just looking at him piece by piece is the fact he has not been successful in the past.

If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

Recognition of Property Rights in material objects is the recognition of a man’s right to exist; his right to pursue his own goals in his own manner at his own discretion with what is rightfully his to command. Just as the Right to Life is the right to the property of one’s own person, so the right to own material products is the right to sustain one’s life and to keep the results of one’s own efforts.

Lewis is also a gud One-Day bowler .. Averaging 25.37 'n' hav an a gud Economy rate ov under 4.00 but still isnt getting chances...Shouldnt he b in???

Probably. It didn't help his cause that after he got injured in Aus we won the CW tourny with Plunkett & Mahmood opening the bowling, but since Plunkett's been deemed surplus to requirements, it's hard to see why Lewis isn't playing.

Going back to Anderson, the only thing I'd add that he wasn't helped by having to lead the attack in his first summer (against SA) instead of support a couple of established quicks & learn from them. Obviously he wasn't remotely ready for that, and he suffered accordingly.

When I look at England possibles in the seam bowling department, it is fairly encouraging, and I think there is some depth to our pool of potential internationals. Of course how some of them take to international cricket is a little unknown until they are given the chance.

But it will do no harm to the likes of Mahmood, Anderson, Broad, Plunkett, Onions and other youngish bowlers on the periphery to enjoy getting plenty of overs and hopefully success under their belts in domestic cricket. I noticed an earlier comment regarding bowlers over 30 being the better bowlers, I dont think its primarily an age thing, its just the experience these guys have means they are gonna be in better position as they know there own game and indeed understand the game a bit more.

Sometimes I do think we are guilty of throwing young players in a trifle too soon, let them learn their trade in domestic cricket. Of course there are always going to be exceptions to the rule. I like the look of Broad, but I hope he is not fast tracked into internationals.

However, does domestic cricket in England teach bad habits ? Perhaps thats a debate for another day.

I wouldn't say Asif has done well in ODIs 22 matches 22 wickets. I would say the minimum for an ODI opening bowler is 1.5 wickets per match with the rest of the bowlers 1.00 per match. Of the three you mention only Malinga has done well.

This is one-day stuff we're talking about - it's economy-rate, not wickets-per-match, that matter the most.

So who are all these good bowlers that are being kept out of the teams by these young players?

For England? Mark Ealham, Robin Martin-Jenkins, Dmitri Mascarenhas, to name a few.

I can't be bothered to argue about Plunkett as he is not one of my favourites but who was taking all the wickets to get us to the final. Mahmood was invisible.

It wasn't a case of taking wickets to get into the final - it was a case of scoring runs. In said victories (all of 2 of them) our totals were 292 and 270 (those chiefly responsible were Joyce and Collingwood, both thanks to a dropped catch). This was what set-up the victories, not Plunkett getting gifted a few wickets with rubbish deliveries.

Flintoff is not an opening bowler and when he has opened has looked even less likely that Harmison to take a wicket in his opening spell. Jones should open with Hoggard until Broad becomes available.

Going back to Anderson, the only thing I'd add that he wasn't helped by having to lead the attack in his first summer (against SA) instead of support a couple of established quicks & learn from them. Obviously he wasn't remotely ready for that, and he suffered accordingly.

Yep, quite. Crazy. Even now I'd question whether he's up to such a task.

To expect a 20-year-old who'd barely been out of League cricket for 2 seasons to lead the attack in a Test was little short of cretinous. Sure, there weren't a hell of a lot of options, but there were 1 or 2.

Yep, quite. Crazy. Even now I'd question whether he's up to such a task.

To expect a 20-year-old who'd barely been out of League cricket for 2 seasons to lead the attack in a Test was little short of cretinous. Sure, there weren't a hell of a lot of options, but there were 1 or 2.

tbf I had a lot of sympathy for the selectors in 2003. IIRC, by the start of the SA series, Caddick, Hoggard, Jones & Johnson were all injured. Gough was available, but shouldn't have been, and retired by the 3rd test anyway, and ditching Harmison probably didn't seem like an option. Which options are you thinking of? Bicknell or Kirtley from the start of the series? Easy with hindsight, but Anderson really did look the real deal at the time. I remember seeing Surrey vs Lancs at the start of the summer, on a typical Oval flat track. Sure enough, Lancs made some huge score without ever looking remotely troubled. Then Surrey batted and Anderson skittled them. In their first innings, anyway.

I had rather less sympathy for the selectors 12 months later when Anderson was permanently 12th man. Totally unnecessary - they knew full well who their 1st XI were - and obviously he'd have been much better off playing for Lancashire.

I just think Flintoff should have taken the new-ball with Gough at Lord's\Edgbaston and Kirtley\Bicknell in the other 2 (easy to forget he didn't take it at Headingley as those 2 did).

I remember that Surrey-Lancs game you speak of - didn't watch it, but would have been hard-pressed to miss the massive discrepancy in totals. But just to think that someone looked the deal based on that 1 game, however sensational it was, was premature. My thoughts on Anderson at the start of that summer, when virtually everyone was going wild with excitement (near enough exactly the same thing as they did with Harmison a year later and Jones 18 months later) were of caution. And after the events of the SA series, I happen to think I was right to be cautious.

I also genuinely believe that had Gough made his comeback 2 Tests later than he did he might quite possibly still be in the side today. It's a real shame he felt he was gone because of 2 bad games on flat pitches.

I did mention that options at the start of that SA series were somewhat limited due to the large amount of injuries. But handing a 20-year-old rookie the lead role in the attack based on one World Cup game and one early-season game (which is essentially all it was) was plain madness.